> I don't see anyone else saying that here yet though?
My original thought was:
> It's totally fine to say something like "I'm worried that the actual products that the AI boom are producing won't generate enough revenue to justify these levels of investment." But the silly doomshilling happening constantly makes no sense. Perhaps more saliently, if you treat the market as a source of economic information, the doomshilling seems to offer no new information at all.
I'm not sure what folks are thinking about money when they read what I say. I think there's some imputed values about gambling and money there (namely I read some values about gambling being bad and money being dangerous) that might be confusing from my point.
Money is just the tool to hold one accountable for what they say. Saying something like "oh it's obvious Oracle is in trouble, AI is a bubble it's going down" (not actually what GP said) is, to me, a post of sentiment without information. It's the kind of thing I do in group chats not online forums. I think it's important for folks who post a sentiment to either post why they believe that sentiment with some amount of detail or to have some consequence for failure for their sentiment. Or else the commons are polluted with irrelevant at best and incorrect at worst content.
Put another way, I think the open internet needs a much, much, much higher level of gatekeeping than it gets now. Putting money behind your beliefs is one way to do this. And since we're talking about publicly tradable financial instruments, it seems like a fairly obvious one.
Money is not dangerous, it is necessary for life, that's the point
Some people have a lot of it and who has more can gang up and influence markets meaning anyone who tries to prove a point to you by shorting a legitimately overpriced stock will be holding a bag
So that's why forums exist and it is good to be able to say what you think and not get bullied into shutting up
if you want economic information then why are you in this forum, just go to the market and let people discuss things;) if you participate in that discussion then that's your choice
My original thought was:
> It's totally fine to say something like "I'm worried that the actual products that the AI boom are producing won't generate enough revenue to justify these levels of investment." But the silly doomshilling happening constantly makes no sense. Perhaps more saliently, if you treat the market as a source of economic information, the doomshilling seems to offer no new information at all.
I'm not sure what folks are thinking about money when they read what I say. I think there's some imputed values about gambling and money there (namely I read some values about gambling being bad and money being dangerous) that might be confusing from my point.
Money is just the tool to hold one accountable for what they say. Saying something like "oh it's obvious Oracle is in trouble, AI is a bubble it's going down" (not actually what GP said) is, to me, a post of sentiment without information. It's the kind of thing I do in group chats not online forums. I think it's important for folks who post a sentiment to either post why they believe that sentiment with some amount of detail or to have some consequence for failure for their sentiment. Or else the commons are polluted with irrelevant at best and incorrect at worst content.
Put another way, I think the open internet needs a much, much, much higher level of gatekeeping than it gets now. Putting money behind your beliefs is one way to do this. And since we're talking about publicly tradable financial instruments, it seems like a fairly obvious one.